Flat Earth OR Why Do People Reject Science? | Philosophy Tube
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 26 ก.ย. 2024
- Why do some people believe the globe is flat? What is the philosophical position known as Direct Realism, and how can optical illusions help us learn about what science is?
Subscribe! tinyurl.com/pr9...
Patreon: / philosophytube
Paypal.me/PhilosophyTube
Audible: tinyurl.com/jn6...
FAQ: tinyurl.com/j8b...
Facebook: tinyurl.com/jgj...
Twitter: @PhilosophyTube
Email: ollysphilosophychannel@gmail.com
Google+: google.com/+thephilosophytube
realphilosophytube.tumblr.com
Recommended Reading:
John Searle, Why You Should Believe It
Deirdre McCloskey, The Rhetoric of Economics - tinyurl.com/yc...
A.J. Ayer, The Foundations of Empirical Knowledge
Locke, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding
Richardson (ed.) Drumbeat
William Carpenter, A Hundred Proofs the Earth is Not A Globe
Music by Epidemic Sound (Epidemicsound.com)
If you or your organisation would like to financially support Philosophy Tube in distributing philosophical knowledge to those who might not otherwise have access to it in exchange for credits on the show, please get in touch!
Any copyrighted material should fall under fair use for educational purposes or commentary, but if you are a copyright holder and believe your material has been used unfairly please get in touch with us and we will be happy to discuss it.
Shout out to all the people coming here from Hbomb's video! Now that so many more people have seen this video it makes me wish I had shaved on the day I filmed it!
It's a great video, Olly!
I'm always so flabbergasted by people like flat earthers or climate change deniers because to me it seems so intrinsically counter intuitive. Hearing it broken down and explained as to why someone could possible hold a view like this that flies in the face of evidence doesn't make me feel any better per say, but it was enlightening and brilliantly done!
xx
Stay fuzzy, it's cute on you
💕💕
I feel like an OG for having seen this before Hbomberguy's video 😂
Did you just use an unforgotten realms reference? Subbed!
Hail Sobek dudes xx
7:26 "I know you don't come to Philosophy Tube just to watch me read out Wikipedia articles and philosophy in a sexy accent.."
...well, I mean.. some of us..
Lotoreo Really!!! Then you are moking wikipedia. Anyway earth is neither flat nor spherical. It's Earth .
Don't confuse your mind, even you can put square inside a circle and circle inside a square. Any evidence for both we have. We are just seeing some pictures and some written books. Knowledge is hidden only wise men can see it...
I think Olly fundamentally misjudged his audience there
Not just... it can be both.
I come for that and stay for the mind fuckery
Lotoreo I kinda do lol
Unrelated to how important this discussion is, thank you for actually including female thinkers regularly. I'm about to graduate from my philosophy BA and I've been heavily disappointed by how frequently that isn't the case.
That's cos men are better at philosophy. If you want to change that help change it. However, no real important work looks likely now - it's all been done or looks very much like that. Sorry sob sisters.
mudpuddlestruck bylightning incel alert 🚨
@Aman Arya Just because they're not apart of the "canon" doesn't mean female philosophers haven't also always existed.
@@Minam0 It does mean we don't have any texts written by most of them and can't really study them.
@@damianbylightning6823 "There's been nothing new in philosophy since Scottish enlightenment" Ayn Rand? I mean, I don't like her, but she is a philosopher
"I can't see so light must not exist" -Blind Direct Realist
@@Sarandib22 Light does exist, you are just arguing about semantics. In simple words, it's the part of electromagnetic spectrum our eyes can see.
Well certainly not to them! Although they might feel its warmth.
@@Sarandib22 in theory light is energy. Energy exists. And light is energy. So light must exist. A simple logical tautology. Unless of course you can prove that energy doesn't exist. At which point all logic of our universe breaks apart.
actually, if you closely examine the major natural source of light , i.e the sun by staring directly at it for long periods of time , light will cease to exist.
@@perhapsso1909 I have no energy until I have coffee. Therefore, light is coffee.
Really appreciate the nuanced take here. As a health justice activist in the US I've spent A Lot of time thinking about the anti-science movement, specifically as it intersects with healthcare, and I've come to believe that a lot of people get sucked into it because the reasons for their mistrust are valid, even if the conclusions they reach are not. They're seeing real harm done by the system (unaffordable care, unethical experimentation on vulnerable populations, weak safety regulations for profit, disbelieving minority patients, etc.) and that means when they hear fictitious stories of harm (vaccines killed my baby, gmos gave me cancer, and so on) they sound plausible. I really think that the only thing that will stop it, or at least keep it small enough to not be a threat, is to create a system where there is no profit motive in medicine at any level - not in research, not in drug manufacture, not in treating patients, nothing - that can be perceived as creating a conflict of interest that could in turn be used as evidence that doctors are conspiring to poison us all with vaccines or whatever. Basically, this is yet another reason why capitalism needs to go
I have thought something similar for a few years now, but from the perspective of the education system. The less we ask students to "just trust us", or tell them "that's too complicated to explain to *you* ", or force them to do things a certain way without explaining why, or other similar things, the more likely they will put more trust in science later in life, on top of receiving a better education.
This is t he type of argument I tend to lean towards when people are anti science in short, science isn’t the problem the capitalist system that uses science and healthcare for profit is the problem.
I wouldn't put it past some of the anti-science conspiracy theorists to come up with new, more creative reasons why governments would provide free health care without profit at any level
That's being too generous. Even in countries with universal health care there are still anti-vaxxers.
@@CeliaTyree Agreed. Leveraging people's health for money is definitely part of the problem, but it's not the only problem in the system.
I love that olly doesn't demonize people who deny science. One of my teachers said it best: "people make sense." There are psychological reasons people do things that seem confusing or illogical.
FIND JESUS
@@leonjames2748 my guy stop spamming
Or maybe people don't make sense, including scientists and philosophers, which also levels the slate for all
@@zJuanemWell we do things for a reason. Whether you can find the reasoning is not really relevant to there being one. You eat to survive that's a reason. People kill for a myriad of reasons some more or less understandable. There are reasons for things some just not understandable.
@@jplayzow there might be a reason (or a cause, which may be a different thing) to every action, but that doesn't mean that it makes sense, but anyway, "making sense" is not precisely defined.
As a musician, I must disagree.
The Earth is most definitely SHARP.
It is Esharp
false it is the shape of a spaghetti
I'd describe it as more natural than flat.
Personally, I think it's Natural
The earth rings like a bell, so it must be a bell.
The problem with attempting to use human senses to determine the shape of our planet is that we developed these senses on the plains of Africa, where our priorities were finding something to eat, and avoiding creatures that might want to eat us. These senses were never intended to give us a realistic perspective n the shape of our word.
Something something God would have made us able to see the curve if he wanted it to be real. Or something.
Now give me all your money, Flat Earthers. I fought your stupid fight for you.
Physicist, Neville Thomas Jones, Ph.D. writes, "We feel no motion of the World on which we all live.
Furthermore, no experiment in all physics has ever demonstrated that the World moves around the sun, or that it rotates on an axis.
In fact scientific experiments have proven just the opposite.
Michelson-Morley experiment, one of the most important and famous experiments in the history of Physics, was performed in 1887 by Albert Michelson and Edward Morley at what is now Case Western Reserve University.
Their experiment was a complete failure; they could find no evidence that the earth was moving at all.
Michelson tried experiment after experiment for the rest of his life and could find no evidence that the earth was moving relative to an aether or to space. Other scientists also tried various experiments and all failed.
The universally held conviction that the Earth rotates on an "axis" daily and orbits the sun annually were exposed as an unscientific deception?
Keep in mind that a rotating, orbiting earth is not counted as a mere hypothesis or even a theory anywhere in the world today.
Earth is simply thicc
E X T R A T H I C C
earth-chan is indeed not flat
Earth is SEXY confirmed
Dummy Thicc
I'd fuck a rock
As a theoretical physics student I actually love talking to flat earthers or any other conspiracy theorists, it's a rare opportunity to look at views so basic we take them for granted and question WHY we believe them, that's the whole point of science.
That's a nice way of looking at it.
Similarly, watching videos debunking creationism is very educating about evolution, geology, and whatever else contradicts it.
I would like to look at their books, their accounts. Wonder how much they made after installing turn stiles so that people can pay to touch the dome?
Physicist, Neville Thomas Jones, Ph.D. writes, "We feel no motion of the World on which we all live.
Furthermore, no experiment in all physics has ever demonstrated that the World moves around the sun, or that it rotates on an axis.
In fact scientific experiments have proven just the opposite.
Michelson-Morley experiment, one of the most important and famous experiments in the history of Physics, was performed in 1887 by Albert Michelson and Edward Morley at what is now Case Western Reserve University.
Their experiment was a complete failure; they could find no evidence that the earth was moving at all.
Michelson tried experiment after experiment for the rest of his life and could find no evidence that the earth was moving relative to an aether or to space. Other scientists also tried various experiments and all failed.
The universally held conviction that the Earth rotates on an "axis" daily and orbits the sun annually were exposed as an unscientific deception?
Keep in mind that a rotating, orbiting earth is not counted as a mere hypothesis or even a theory anywhere in the world today.
don't worry bud i got that reference at 4:20. then again it was a reference to my goofy videos.
Eeeeeeeeee! hi Rob! Loved Unforgotten Realms, can't wait for the Hollywood film version of it with Kenneth Branagh as Schmoopy and Idris Elba as Eluamus Nailo!
Damn this is the weirdest collisions of worlds I've ever experienced! You guys are amazing creators!
Oh my god, I was such a huge fan of Urealms and to see it randomly pop up in this video that I only discovered 2 years later was so cool. It's the first moment where my knowledge of obscure references has finally come into play.
Classical Indian astronomers didn't just work out that the Earth was a sphere, they also calculated the approximate circumference of the planet. Aryabhata's number was off, but not by that much.
And the famous calculation from Eratosthenes. He was off by a 1%.
Closer to 5 percent, I think. Wasn't he like 600 miles off? Don't get me wrong - that's still wildly impressive.
+Paul Miller
That might be. He calculated that the Earth circumference (40030 km, from the radius) was 252000 stadia. Now, there are 5 definitions for a stadium. The value calculated by Eratosthenes could vary depending on the definition used. The problem is that any of these 5 definitions are from the XIX century onwards. Why? Because there was no standarized unit of measurement in the ancient Greek.
The good thing about the Eratosthenes calculation is that we have some records of distances he calculated directly, apparently. Using those distances we get a likely value (1 stadium = 157.7 m), and using that value then Eratosthenes calculation is 39740 km, which comes at an error of about 0.7%.
But you can find a range of numbers in this regard, so there is that.
Interesting, thanks. I should have guessed that was the case. I know with precious metals, the unit of measure was a talent, which could mean a couple different things. One was a quantity, and the word refers to 10,000 coins (presumably 1 oz. coins, but who knows). The other was weight - a talent was the weight of water in an amphora. This was more often what was being referenced, and there was no standard size for amphorae.
+Paul Miller
I did not know that about the talent. History is way fuzzier than it sometimes seem.
Proof 18 is literally the 1800s version of “pics or it didn’t happen”
Toruma Kalig Sadly, Flat Earther call any evidence of a globe Earth is just “fake news” or “NASA photoshop.” It’s ridiculously frustrating
@@vinceknox4425 because it is. Every pic of earth as a ball is shopped
@@ICExMikey proof and why would they waste million of money to tell if a ball is a globe?
@@Megaman-2407 It's mostly true because most images of the globe are composite images. Meaning a bunch of different pictures photoshoped together. I do think theres at least one full picture that was taken from the moon and probably more I dont know about. The fact that these pictures are composite or called "NASA photoshop" is not an argument however to proove flat earth.
@@XxBobTheGlitcherxX yeah i dont see any evident on the flat earth side either and they claim it true
"...and that, my liege, is how we know the Earth to be banana-shaped."
Now explain to me how sheep bladders can be employed to prevent earthquakes
You two put a big smile on my face. Thanks!
I should watch it again some time
This statement has a bunch of appeal.
You seriously underestimate how interested I'd be in listening to you read Wikipedia articles.
As a scientist myself, I would posit that McCloskey's critique of scientific communication is actually excessively generous.
To claim a citation is essentially equivalent to an appeal to authority is true - however, it is not an appeal to the authority of the author of the cited study, but the author of the study doing the citing. The claim is not "this is experiment is trustworthy" but "I read this article and I believe it to be trustworthy". The consequences are much the same - scientific communication is a separate beast to science itself, based on persuasion rather than demonstration - but the real twist is that this isn't actually a problem. No scientific study ever written has "proven" anything, and only very few have disproven anything. They have only supplied evidence in support of or in opposition to a proposed hypothesis (some to the extent that they could, essentially, be considered proven). But such a hypothesis must be proposed prior to the experiment - otherwise, wherefore perform the experiment? It can be reviewed, or an alternate hypothesis advanced when the data is obtained, but the hypothesis must be generated before the experiment is performed (and hence bias is unavoidable). Furthermore, this positions the experiment not as some pure attempt at pursuing the light of truth wherever it may lead, but rather as itself being an exercise in persuasion - the persuasion of the experimenter.
Simply put, science stands on the assumption that an objective reality exists, but a human is unable to observe it and therefore must guess at its nature and use statistics to evaluate the truth of their guess. In this way of thinking, an experiment is perhaps best explained as but a way for the natural world to persuade the experimenter to accept a particular notion of truth, through whatever series of signals it is that the experimenter has chosen to measure. Therefore, a scientific claim is loosely analogous to a translated novel - objective reality wrote the novel, and the experimenter translated it, but in so doing caused it to change and mutate to some degree, meaning the "statement of fact" that was advanced is, at the very least, distorted.
But every scientist already knows this, implicitly or explicitly. This is why systems like peer review, replication studies (even though capitalist structures have a bit of a choke hold on this one) and going by the consensus of experts rather than singular opinions. The problem only arises when those without this understanding use "science" as a blunt tool to try and push a triangle through a circle, pretending that it fits, as the robust system of experimentation, translation, critique and acceptance that formulates truthful science is reduced to simply acceptance.
Thank you for writing this. Beautifully said. Scientific illiteracy frustrates me above all else.
JESUS SAVES. TRUST IN HIM NOT SCIENCE 💪
Thank you for writing this. I'm bookmarking this comment so that I can ponder over some of these things while I'm on my long lonely walks. You made my day(s)! :)
@@leonjames2748 Why?
Also, why can't you trust science in the physical world, and trust Jesus in the spiritual world?
Also: you have to clarify if the physical world and the spiritual world are one and the same, or separate, or if one of them isn't real, etc etc.
I'm guessing this will miss you widely, but, you need to build a foundation first before making a claim.
HMMMMM
You’ve added to my thoughts today friend
You're a good person my friend. You're intelligent and compassionate, that's a rare combination these days :)
Brian Anderson no it isn't.
@MrGoblin1000 you sure won't find it on television. Some people have been successfully atomized by the dominant culture of "Get Born, Work, Work, Work, Die" and we don't all have the social support we'd need to feel connected to intelligent and compassionate people. Your terse and dispassionate contradiction of Brian's expression of support for Ollie actually functions better as a confirmation of his frustration than as a refutation of it, despite your denotation.
Yeah buddy it's a rare combination. A large majority of the people I met in my lifetime were neither. The most compassionate people I met were more often of average intelligence. But I'm going to stop now, before my notifications light up with people wanting to unpack the words "intelligence" and compassion" ;D
:)
Ian Barry what does any of that have to do with each other. First you talk about tv, then about social welfare, then about how me disagreeing with someone proves them right. What does any of that have to do with anything?
"... since denying scientific evidence is really dangerous, even fatal." Man, that line rings so true in 2020 :(
Ah, this really gets to the heart of what I find so frustrating about the flat earth conspiracy: it looks an awful lot like reasonable, healthy skepticism. If I'm being honest, the arguments that most convince me that the earth is round aren't the observable facts, but trying to imagine how deep the conspiracy would need to go for so many of the authorities and experts to all be lying.
+Robert Baillargeon - Amazingly the criminals manage to KEEP their nasty secrets. I'm not talking about this topic, but others like them killing JFK, MLK, 9/11 & the list goes on.
I also don't get how they can ALL keep these secrets, but given that my own dysfunctional family can keep a secret b/c they are good at lying, I don't put much past most humans who lie every day of their lives : (
Reasonable healthy skepticism can only ever take us as far as "I don't know." The moment we step beyond doubting and start being certain that the Earth is flat, we've abandoned healthy skepticism started building a mythology. A skeptic won't try to tell you what's true because she doesn't think she knows what's true, so it's usually not hard to spot when someone's not being skeptical.
Robert Baillargeon People are conditioned to be submissive and stupid. Their stupidity is not a conspiracy theory. There are no flat bits on a ball. This is a verifiable fact. Space cadets. 😂
Robert, you make a good point about the round earth proofs not being observable. But I would rather say "readily" observable. They take some effort to set up conditions that can be observed. On the other hand, the errors that common sense and perception, along with conditioned precepts, are well known.
I believe that most legit FE types experience the phenomena they describe. One really can see objects below the horizon, for example. But they fail in thinking that proves a flat earth. They don't test that. As these accumulate into a mindset, they need to deal with contradictions. Conspiracy is a convenient grab bag, which again they don't think through.
The curve would be seen at 70 000 feet, yet it isn't.
Lasers have been shot leveled across multiple kilometers.
Boat radars sees farther than the curve.
I haven't seen the Earth with my own eyes. I wouldn't say it's absolutely flat but readily observable science and testing...it's not the globe we've been told.
One of your best yet, Olly. A very relevant piece in a the world where people frequently offer "alternative facts." I am a professor who is, at this point in the semester, explaining logical fallacies, rhetorical analysis and persuasion. The idea that all scientific explanations --- barring those that include explicit demonstrations --- are persuasive in nature is fascinating. [The example you gave of Galileo's peers accepting only a modified version of his hypothesis is precisely what happened to Harvey when he demonstrated that blood circulated. By inserting a glass tube into the carotids of dogs and sheep while tying the aortas, he assumed that the other physicians would realize that, because of his demonstration, all mammals must have a circulatory blood system. However, the other doctors congratulated him on his findings and said, well done! Adding, of course, this proves nothing about the human blood system, which moves by the lungs (or, as some some still believed, ebbed and flowed.]
I'm in a tailspin of existential despair from being in hiding for months. I'm terrified of my community and where my country is heading while a cheese puff orchestrates our doom...so I'm here, binging this lovely man who's voice and logic is one of the last few things preserving my sanity (or what's left of it). You're a real treasure, Ollie
Hey man, I hope you’re doing alright
The terror of the cheese puff continues, even 2 years after he left the office. And he's trying to come back...
As the great Alan Watts said "you can´t convince a man the Earth is flat, he`ll say 'look over there, looks flat to me', you have to say alright, let´s go find the edge"
Richard Byrd found the edge. This was the catalyst for Space, which doesn't exist. You people are so last millennium. You make me laugh.
has anyone ever been able to measure the curvutare of the earth?
I love the John Locke disclaimer, said in a voice with the distinct message of why do I have to talk about this guy again. 😂 I get those feels.
Excellent video. The scientific method is so unbelievably important. That is why we must take pains to not fetishise it. As well as understanding the social conditions in which it operates. Having compassion and empathy towards your fellow humans is very important to. Thank you for your important work (which by the way is getting more and more stylistically interesting and distinct)
Yep, that's the way to go man.
When I'm in history class, my teacher is all like, "This happened two thousand years ago..."
Then I'm all like, "Wait a minute, how do you know that?"
The she's all like, "Well, there's all this verifiable evidence."
I'm all like, "Prove to me it's 100% IMPOSSIBLE to fake the evidence."
She's all like, "Well, that's not completely possible."
Then I'm all like, "CLASS DISMISSED!"
Dude, I'm like the smartest most scientific person in my school, and I don't believe ANYTHING.
Right on, man. It's irrelevant. I'm irrelevant. What is a year anyway? Prove to me a year is ACTUALLY a year? Dude, you are my hero man. I wish I could be as intelligent as you.
That's right. I won't believe anything anyone tells me. Except you, Sinsimillas. Wait, no! I can't believe anyone, not even you, Sinsimillas. Or can I? Please tell the way, Sinsimillas. I am confused in this irrelveant world.
Ha ha, that's a good one, Sinsimillas! Damn, you are as funny as you are smart! But why waste time reflecting on me? I would like to reflect oh how you have added a TREMENDOUS amount to the conversation. Not only is your credibility SUPER HIGH, your sense of humor cannot be matched. I can't wait for next wise observation!
BOOM! Another truth bomb dropped! You are a harsh, but fair man, Sinsimillas. The world needs to know who you are... I'm sure you can lead them to next Enlightenment.
"Nobody's going to get that reference". Challenge Accepted.
"Optical Illusions" comes from some late 90s website on Optical Illusions that autoplayed a sound file saying it like that, right?
Unforgotten Realms, to be exact
Got em
SKELETOR VOICE!!!
Or the late 90s/early 2000s website "Liquid Generation" where (presumably imitating that website) they showed optical illusions and then threw in a screamer to scare the shit out of you.
Michael oh my god I remember those!!! I had a teacher that showed the class one like that where a car w as driving in the distance and this person dressed up to look like a half decomposed zombie/skeleton jumped out
“Denying scientific evidence is sometimes actually really dangerous, even fatal” ….yeah we’ve all learned that now
Nearly half the world is vaccinated...I don't see people dropping like flies, a matter of fact, COVID mortality is at all-time low among those vaccinated. Only right-wing americans make a fuss about vaccines.
I tried imagining a conversation with a flat earther, asking "What WOULD persuade you it's round?" And the hypothetical person said "When I see it myself." I didn't realize immediately how relevant this was to your conclusion.
That is always the first question to ask someone in a scientific argument: What evidence would be enough to convince you that you're wrong. If the answer is "there is none" you know you can walk away right then and save yourself the headache.
This video aged well. I’m coming here for the second time in a month to try to understand my friends and family more
Flat Earth or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Being Persuaded
The history of the field of astronomy is pretty interesting. For a long time they actually used epicycles and deferents to describe the motion of celestial bodies (other planets orbit in a circle and that circle orbits the earth). They were really accurate because any time something contradicted their model, they would just add more epicycles until it approximated what the planets were actually doing. For a while even, there were people using Kepler's math to model the solar system because it was easier but they still believed in geocentrism.
Good video, and your points on the limits of scientific persuasion are well said. But very often it seems to me that people bucking against the scientific consensus are trying to establish their own alternative system of authority. Flat Earthers, for example, are often extreme Biblical Literalists with all the social agendas that suggests. Also, they propose a global conspiracy that suppresses the suppresses proof of the flat earth and if you scratch the surface of that you'll find plenty of antisemitism. It sometimes seems to me that anti-scientific and anti-elitist beliefs are adopted as an excuse to pursue bigotry and fascism, rather than bigotry and fascism coming as a consequence of anti-scientific beliefs.
Having recently written my PhD thesis I really have to object to McCloskey at 8:57 - when we cite scientific papers we're acknowledging the intellectual contribution to our argument, and directing the reader to evaluate it at its source. A good literature review will evaluate the paper and discuss why accepting it as an authority is reasonable or unreasonable (usually based on the assumption that the reader has a bachelor's degree in the relevant subject).
Not only that, results are compared between papers. "So and so, et al. found x, but when measured with method b, this other person, et al. found y."
Even Sir Arthur Conan Doyle already included a quip against the Flat Earth belief in his "The Lost World". ^ ^
Is this part of the "leftist youtube" I've started hearing about?
Yes.
Is that a picture of Ivanka Trump pretending to be a scientist?
Yep, in poorly-fitting ppe, mixing chemicals right in front of her unshielded face. Truly the best kind of people...
"...spare time out of his busy schedule from being an enormous racist..."
Absolutely rekt. What a mad lad.
"Earth is a planet" would not have been used as part of that analogical argument in Galileo's time, because it was not yet established then that the Earth *was* a planet. Remember that in primitive astronomy, "planet" meant a point of light in the sky that moved relative to the other points of light, a "wandering star". It was not yet established at Galileo's time that the Earth was the same kind of body as any of those points of light, so Earth being "a planet" was part of what Galileo was proving, not a premise from which it was proved.
But how has he proven that by observing Venus?
So far, Earth could just be another kind of celestial body, aside from stars, planets, the Moon, and the Sun.
i watched this video a couple of times to make sure i understood your arguments. i was in school taking 12 hours at the time and i would watch videos to break up my studies so i would go back fresh. i appreciate your strait forward approach and excellent presentation of the subjects that you have presented. it is well done, professional and i have told others about your channel
Hi Ollie, not sure if this is a major ball ache for you, but when you reference an old video (like the Berkeley one today) could you put a link to it in the description? I can't *right click* *open in new window* on the 'top right' links.
I really wish I could show this to my Grandma, she'd really dig it - but she's an anti-vaxxer and climate change denier *sigh* . I swear the political polarization is freaking terrible for my sanity.
I get climate change denial, it's wrong but I can understand where it comes from, especially in old people who aren't educated in modern science. How do old people not understand vaccines though? They literally were around to witness vaccines kill off entire diseases. Also, why, in the name of all things good, did vaccines become a political issue? It definitely is going there but, come on people decades and hundreds of studies have shown no connection to any real harm. We've eliminated several diseases and there is no downside to diseases, not even cost really (at least in any first world country), can we not politicize a basic noncontroversial objectively good thing?
@@Kobolds_in_a_trenchcoat anti-vaxxers have been around since variolation was a thing. I think the honest answer is that it didn't really gain popularity up until Andrew Wakefield through gasoline on the fire in the late 1990s. Allegedly he was developing his own vaccine and wanted to discredit the competition so...capitalism. More or less. Regarding vaccine information in general, I love recommending "On Immunity" by Eula Biss. It's well researched and thorough and accessible.
An especially great video, Olly.
Great food for thought for me. However, I believe this video also highlights the need for better education in the sciences. Most of us are not familiarized with the structure of a scientific journal article until college or graduate school. The literature review section of the article gives us a context and purpose for the research. This section along with the first part of the methods section is typically written before the research is approved and subsequently carried out. The methods section reports the actual information regarding the research (who participated, how many, instruments used, statistics, probability values set, etc.) at hand. Of note, not all scientific research and writings use the "scientific method" since we cannot determine a cause-effect relationship between all variables. More and better education in science would go a long way in helping us to be better consumers of scientific information.
Thank you so much for making all of your vids! Coming from a STEM background coming across your channel/watching has made me come to appreciate philosophy so much more❤️
Very thought provoking, never thought of it like that, I really need to get Caliban and the Witch but am poor.
So capitalism, a society where people are alienated from each other, and everyone is encouraged to look out only for themselves, is quite conducive to this kind of thing? As people are assumed to have their own selfish agenda, because that's what capitalism tells us humans are like, they are selfish, people don't do things for the goodness of others, people wouldn't just tell me something enlightening about the world "for free"
i just recommended the library to get that book for me to borrow, and they ordered it. I'm excited to read it.
I did the exact same thing and have started reading it. Absolutely captivating so far !
I think it's a bit broader than capitalism: conspiracy theories (mostly of the religious end-times variety) were rampant in Late Antiquity through the Middle Ages. The prevailing social order almost certainly affects the *kind* of conspiracies that are popular, at least in their portrayal, but most of them go back a long way into the past before capitalist societies were fully established.
Rhods_ Freakonomics don't quite agree with that
Bruce Raymond
Hoo boy love to see a Nazi in the wild.
The included discussion of the social construction of science reminded me of an amazing book I read in a History of Science course I took for my Biology degree: Sandra Harding's "Is Science Multicultural?: Postcolonialisms, Feminisms, and Epistemologies."
Harding puts in a lot of effort to situate current science within a history of colonialism and Eurocentrism, which on its own changed how I viewed science as a set of philosophies and methodologies. She also promotes 'standpoint epistemology,' an epistemology I'd have to revisit to remember how I feel about it.
I'm sorry, but: If you're searching for curvature, looking at the horizon (from left to right/right to left?), you're searching in the wrong place. We don't see a curved line, standing, say on deck of a ship _in the middle_ of the ocean,, pointing at the horizon and turn 360degrees on the spot, drawing an imaginary line: If you expect that line to be curved, you expect wrongly, cause if there _was_ a curve in that line, the end wouldn't meet up with the starting point, NOT leaving you a circle. Your curved line runs _straight away from you_ (no matter which direction), the reason why ships disappear _over_ the horizon, bottom part first; mast last and visa versa.
So, in short: If you're looking for a curve, following the line of the horizon, you're looking in the wrong place.
And to all faith-believers: Reality doesn't care about philosophical notions and/or our fears and preferences. We might _influence_ reality because of stuff like that, and surely our _perception_ of it, might be shaped by it, but _minding_ about anything, it does not. (for those who for instance say: _"Nature is God"_ ), or at least: there has never been any evidence presented to show otherwise. (oops; I said _"in short"_ , didn't I ... Better leave it at this, then.
Interesting vids, btw!
It amazes me how many people look in he wrong place for the horizon! So thanks for reminding us.
Eh, I think the curvature is closer to what FE says they're looking for, except they think it requires a change in elevation angle. Think of yourself far above the earth - the edge of the earth describes a (curved) circle, and that horizon encompasses almost-but-not-quite one hemisphere. Every point on the circle makes the same angle (you at the vertex) with the center of the earth, and the earth takes up a small fraction of all the directions you could look.
As you descend, the circle gets gradually bigger until it takes up almost-but-not-quite half of all the directions you could look, and encompasses a small fraction of the earth's surface, and the angle through you between the horizon and earth's center goes gradually from a small angle to almost-but-not-quite 90°. So if you had a field of vision large enough, and you looked straight down, you would see the horizon as a circle going around your peripheral vision.
The thing is that the earth is so big relative to our usual altitude that the don't notice the subtle difference in angle of elevation to the horizon compared to a 90° level. That direct observation tells us the earth is bigger than the moon (Apollo astronauts noticed the difference) but it takes measurements, higher altitude, and/or other evidence to distinguish between the large round earth and a flat earth. I think FE tends to miss the scale involved, as well as lack some spatial visualization skills. Both of those I find understandable, though I don't understand the level of special pleading employed to explain away so much else.
When a ship comes over the horizon, you see the mast first. That would only be possible if the Earth was curved, just about every seafaring people figured that out, not just the Greeks. That it's a spheroid is a fairly obvious leap to make.
Bam, direct realism. Observation only implies the Earth is flat if you don't fully consider what you see. Direct realism is indirect realism where you don't bother to interpret what you see.
Anyway, you shouldn't cite economics as an example of something being wrong with science as a whole, since a lot of scientists in hard sciences write it off. Physical science is a lot more objective, in subject matter and rhetoric. I can't even imagine using a metaphor in a (biology) paper, it would be like walking around in a clown costume.
The failure of people to accept scientific evidence in fields where those things are fairly well established isn't a problem with science, it's a problem with education.
1EthanCC as a physicist, I think writing off economics as “not a science” would be an example of the “no true Scotsman” fallacy. There are differences between how physics, chemistry, or biology are done and how economics is done, but I don’t think that doesn’t make it science. It’s just a much harder science. In physics, we use analogies a lot. It’s only fair that economists should be able to as well.
The earth is round and flat.
As someone doing philosophy A-level we were taught direct realism is different from naive realism because it allows for relational properties. Is that wrong or did you conflate them for brevity?
Columbus actually had the circumference of the globe close to modern measurements, He and his contemporaries just thought Asia was huge. Just a nitpick great video thanks for the great content.
@"Columbus actually had the circumference of the globe close to modern measurements, "
No. That is not true. Columbus believed that the circumference of the globe was 17.000 statute miles and that from the Canary Islands to Japan was 13,000 miles (roughly correct). Thus sailing westward only required 4000 miles. He died still believing he had been to the East Indies in his four voyages.
""" In making his own calculation, however, Columbus preferred the values given by the medieval Persian geographer, Abu al Abbas Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn Kathir al-Farghani (a.k.a. Alfraganus): one degree (at the equator) is equal to 56.67 miles. That was Columbus’s first error, which he compounded with a second: he assumed that the Persian was using the 4 856-foot Roman mile; in fact, Alfraganus meant the 7 091-foot Arabic mile.
Taken together, the two miscalculations effectively reduced the planetary waistline to 16,305 nautical miles, down from the actual 21,600 or so, an error of 25 percent.
A reference within a scientific paper is not an argument from authority it's as the name implies a reference. It simply allows you to find and verify where a claim comes from. It simply goes here is the data i used to base my experiments on. It's an explanation not an argument.
Yes. But the Milgrim experiments can be interpreted as showing the effect of a scientific environment on participants - making them believe that by applying a lethal shock to someone that they were adding to scientific knowledge.
It sometimes is and argument at authority. Let me explain with an example. In Latinamerica there's a very famous right wing commentator, he wrote "The black book of the new left", I've been reading it and he quoted a study saying "this study explains how homosexual families raise homosexual children", when you actually go to the study, you find that the study had that hypothesis, but it couldn't be proven, the black book the new left never says that the hypothesis wasn't proven, that's an ad verecundiam.
Rarity Sparkle its an argument from authority when its used incorrectly. Its in no way an argument from authority in itself
Chris Walker Wow, you're a dumbass.
Thank you! This really bothered me. If your writing is an argumentative essay, then yes, citing a scientific paper is an argument from authority. But a scientific paper cites other papers to show that "here, this data exists". Each new scientific work can't be expected to replicate the results of all scientific papers on which the new work is based. Therefore, you simply show that the data upon which your new data is based exists, and was also subject to peer review.
"Some people still believe that today."
coughSamHarriscough
Excuse me, I have rewatched the video twice and cannot make out that quote.
Could you tell me what are you referring to?
(re: the benefits of eugenics)
Funny thing perception: it depends on your scale and depth of phenomenological knowledge. For example, the stick in the water appearing bent is indeed an illusion in a certain frame of context. Wouldn’t direct realism include the observation of the extant phenomenon of refraction as part of outside-of-self reality?
The refraction is the indication that the water exists and is denser than air. It isn't however, an indication that the water is wet.
Bennie Saying Things
No. Direct realism is plain wrong. The point is we can't directly observe anything with sight, except electromagnetic waves. Those waves are affected and interfered with, and lots of things exist that we can't even see. That basically makes direct realism DoA.
It's a fair point to make that in actual practice there is a lot of authority/consensus used in a science based knowledge system - but that is also the case in any other functional knowledge systems.
Probably 99% of what we will ever learn of advanced concepts are essentially accepted based on authority/consensus - purely out of necessity. If you questioned everything you learned until you could scientifically verify it yourself you simply wouldn't get anywhere because learning anything would take an inordinate amount of time. You'd essentially have to do all of the knowledge-building that al of hmanity has done since the stone-age again by yourself ...
Every system of knowledge eventually breaks down if you are unwilling to make any concession at the fundamental level. There is an argument that says that because all we can know of the world is through our senses - and our senses are inherently flawed - thus we can never truly learn anything about how the world actually is. Perhaps that is true to some degree, but it's a pointless philosophical argument in a world where you HAVE to accept SOME system of knowledge in order to just live and function. Throwing your arms in the air and saying "but it's not undamentally perfect!" isn't going to help you.
But the crucial difference about science compared to other methods is that any knowledge gained is fundamentally based on the scientific method - and thus any given thing CAN be checked and verified (or rather potentially falsified to be more accurate). To actually do this is beyond any given person, but the scientific review process does this for us and while not being perfect itself has proven itself to be the best practical approach to this problem that we have found so far.
But yes, to trust the result of the scientific review process again does rely on trusting the consensus and authority of the foremost experts in any given field. It is certainly much more robust than trusting a single person's expert opinion, but you still have to accept that there isn't some world-wide conspiracy involving thousands of people all working in perfect synchronicity.
I just find that threshold acceptable to the alternative - ie. not being able to know anything, or simply making up your own nonsense and making it the truth by force of will...
I agree. If one is to live life, one isn't simply deciding whether they "agree" or "disagree" with epistemological systems; rather, at some point we have to pick one and the best option seems to be the one where formalized institutions at least approximate truth over just individually going "well, I just believe in my own common sense (which likely has more internal bias than any institution since institutions at least have to develop through different individuals' ideas competing)". At worst, we can say that our scientific institutions have allowed technology to progress and our modern world to form
Thank you for the well reasoned unbiased explanations!
That beginning, when you said that you promised yourself that you'll never make anyone feel bad for thinking something, have made me remember why I like that channel so much. No matter the subject, you never use a depreciative speech. It might not look it, but it does make a lot of difference.
Here, in my homeland (Brazil), people tend to be depreciative in every opportunity possible (from common people to artists). Seeing that there's still people who avoid being that way makes me want to watch them. It gives the impression that I'll really learn something instead of just see someone else putting people down
3:03 Well, the horizon IS flat)) That is, the horizon is just a line lying on a single plane which cuts off a segment of the globe.
The horizon of a planet keeps being flat even when we are far away and see the entire globe. It just moves to a plane closer to the planet's centre. That is, the horizon then goes around the globe kinda like the equator or a meridian.
The mistake in that flat-Earth reasoning is that the horizon isn't the planet itself xD
Interesting explanation, but I think there may be more to it than _Direct Realism_ and suspicions about motivation. I've talked to a number of Flat Earth believers and many are as you describe. However while some of the more hardcore believers _appear_ to embrace Direct Realism and greatly value visual evidence, they will also strongly reject observable apparent realities if they appear to run counter to their beliefs. For example, of late I've been told that certain stars don't exist, that the sun isn't hot, that the moon is never visible in daytime, that tides don't happen, that planes don't exist, that Australia doesn't exist, that skydivers don't fall, and that digital cameras don't use lenses.
Is it just me or does he just EXUDE sexual energy? Like please teach me daddy.
/Admittedly Creepy Mode Engaged 😏
To the point of distraction, sometimes, yes. ^^;
Like, 'Oh noes, I need to rewind the past five, ten, fifteen minutes of the video because I drifted into Thirstland at some point and failed to focus on what those gorgeous lips and eyes were even *saying*.'
...Resulting in me having to watch even *more* of our gracious host in order to absorb all of the content properly, of course! 😆
Oh dear, oh dear. Isn't life hard? 😜😺😻
//Creepy Mode Disengaged
If anything, just call it a perfectly reasonable excuse to watch the video again. It will provide a reinforcement of the lesson. 😇
Its just you
Jesse Colton - Not just you. This guy us sexy and hot as all hell.
Oh I watched some of his later videos and he’s aware of the thirst following, he doesn’t mind it, or the thirst tweets. I made sure that I was fapping to his videos ethically.
Olly tends to make me thirsty as hell too
I love to ask students how they would argue with a flat-Earther (practically, without taking a trip to the moon!) It's not as easy as you think! What the exercise tends to show is that no matter how much data you have, there are always multiple theories that fit the data. In the end, most smart students realize their best or only option is to appeal to Occam's razor.
5:27
Don't mind me, Im just saving timing to watch it later under acid
What is the bathroom mirror not good enough for you 😂 been caught so many times.
If flat earthers simply trust their senses, then what sense of theirs shows that the earth isn't revolving around the sun, but in fact, falling downward through space? Which one of their senses shows us that there's a large wall of ice that seals off the edges of the world? While I love how your video shows why flat earthers think the way they do, this kind of generous thinking only goes so far. At some point, they are quite literally making things up to provide evidence that supports their perceived reality.
"The modern flat-earth conspiracy" sounds like there exists some group of people conspiring to... make the Earth flat? I think you meant to say "conspiracy theory", though again I'm not sure who is supposed to be conspiring about what in the flat-earth "theory".
ngl i really like the implication that there's a group of people out there trying to flatten out the earth
I would argue that academic citations are not argument from authority, but piecemeal proof. It's practically impossible to begin all research from first principles but the researcher is aware of a responsibility to layout their proof from those first principles. A compromise is struck in which the researcher may begin their argument from the conclusions of their predecessors, but the formal citation allows any skeptical reader to follow the chain of citations back to first principles and challenge any assertion along that chain.
The argument is not "smart person said it therefore it's true" but rather "assuming this is true (test if you like)"
While I appreciate the usefulness of the Galileo analogy, I loathe the use of Galileo as an analogy. Galileo is oft held up as a man of science as we understand it, foundational to science, persecuted merely for his belief in science. But as I understand it, these things are not true. Galileo was a man of faith.
He had faith that the world operated in a way that was mathematically elegant, and (somehow) believed the Copernican model to be mathematically elegant. He argued heliocentrism from Venus' phases, yes, but he also argued from the tides, predicting a single daily high tide when there was observably two. He also argued from stellar parallax when his own research into the matter had disproven it (it was a fluke, but the evidence he had available to him suggested there was no observable parallax). He argued that comets were swamp gas even after a comet was observed with telescopes to be a celestial body, because the Copernican model did not allow for any such bodies; because the existence of comets as celestial bodies was not mathematically elegant.
Galileo was an opportunist. He LOVED taunting the Ptolemaic scholars when the observations disproved their beliefs, such that the planets were not solid objects. But when his observations turned against the Copernican model, Galileo simply pretended he had not made them, just as those scholars before him had pretended not to see anything through his telescope. Observation or anything resembling "science" as we understand it today was simply a tool by which Galileo could vindicate his presupposed beliefs, and so science was discarded when it was not accomplishing that goal.
The real tragedy is that, in his arrogant belief that no contemporary could possibly hold an original thought that he had not already had, he ignored Kepler's book that produced an actually viable heliocentric model (and the Tychonic model you mentioned, which was mostly mathematically sound for the observations at the time) in order to pit the obsoleted Copernican model against the even-more-obsoleted Ptolemaic model, wound up insulting the Pope who commissioned the text specifically with his demonstrably false "observation" regarding the tides (which had previously been rebuked by said Pope), and, having previously burned any possible ally that might care for him through baseless accusations of plagiarism or in needlessly toxic arguments (such as was the case with the comets I mentioned before), was set upon by those sympathetic to the Ptolemaic scholars he had so enjoyed embarrassing in public, and wound up dragging the "heresy" of heliocentrism down with him.
Didn't Bertolt Brecht go that angle when he wrote a play based on Galileo?
I think it does not matter if science is a social construct or not. It is just that it is very conducive to human progress. With all it's fallacies (which is brought about by "peer-reviewed" mechanism, when most of the ones reviewing have socially acceptable, but not rigorously tested in a scientific manner, ideas like "shape of skull" can take hold), science has several correcting mechanisms to more effectively deal with these social biases, and in the process change those ideas (racism is not acceptable anymore). And practically this is the best we have got (we don't have a better way than let a diverse set of people review it, along with experts to include it in reputed science journals).. and the results more than speak for themselves. Look at the industrial revolution, the vast increase in standard of living, the population explosion, medicines.. the list goes on and on.
To really make my point, I think we have been using this idea to build up on previous teachings (peer-review mechanism/scientific methods) from even before homo sapiens made an appearance. The language itself was built up over time, learned and passed down generations, using which we further developed even more complex ideas like tool use, fire, hunting strategy, cooperation.. leading to farming, writing, etc. The rest is history. You cannot expect a hunter gatherer to come up with a refrigerator on his own. We have to build upon the knowledge of others to reach that point, and that is exactly what has enabled us as a species to come this far.
As far as I can tell, the economic force is very strong, which when kept in check (see capitalism), all agree the better off the humans are, the more minds there are to feed whatever hidden motives are there for organizations like nations, capitalists, (even science?) etc. Well, until AI come along that is... :D
Hey Olly, when you talk about Conspiracy Theories these days i think it is important to take the immense ideological weight into consideration. Many of the popular conspiracies stem directly from far-,alt- right sources and often hold antisemitic and xenophobic ideas. Therefore i think it is very important to politicize the discussion about conspiracy theories. I would love to hear your thoughts on this.
I don't think that citing other scientific papers is an appeal to authority. Science is based on observations, and the observation of how often science has improved our lives in material ways is a valid observation that can inform our decision on weather or not to accept the results of scientific studies. That's not to say we should accept everything that has ever been written in a peer reviewed journal, and we should take into account reproducibility etc, but to say that citing a scientific paper is automatically committing the fallacy of appeal to authority is just incorrect.
I came for the philosophy. I stay for the references to semi-obscure web series.
When I had barely graduated from school, I argued with some science deniers just for the hell of it. I was almost invariably either accused of being bribed by someone or of being some kind of elitist in an ivory tower. It was both hilarious (because I was and still am totally impoverished) and sad (because science doesn't care if you believe it or not). In any case, I wasn't really arguing to prove I was right but more to discover what kinds of thinking go into skepticism when it comes to science. One of the big themes was a distrust of government which, considering how much shady bullshit that most governments have been up to in the world, is not completely irrational. Hell, there are areas in which I don't trust the government either. And, because the governments of the world have experimented in some pretty weird things, there is even a little evidence for some of the claims of people who don't believe in science. So, because a lot of these people don't trust the government, they don't feel like they can trust scientists who have been given government funds. In one specific area, I would agree with them and that is the area of drug research. If the DEA has funded the study, chances are that it's going to be a biased study.
The other thing I found that tended to make people doubt science was faith. Most of the time, it wasn't faith in one of the conventional religions, but faith in more abstract forms of mysticism. These were the same people who thought depression could be cured by both not thinking about bad things that had or could happen and thinking about positive things instead. These are the people who talk about energy and stuff like that. It seemed to me that their skepticism against science was more of a rebellion against anything mainstream and they saw modern science as being too mainstream. Since these are the people who are also often skeptical of "chemicals" without realizing that everything is made up of chemicals, most modern scientific explanations of things are equally suspect.
I don't mind people having their own beliefs about certain things that science says they're wrong about, like contrails or whether it's better to avoid genetically modified organisms. What I do mind is when people have beliefs that will harm other people, such as when people don't believe that climate change is a result of human activity and that we should do something about it or when people don't believe in vaccines. Those beliefs can kill other people and so the consequences of acting on such beliefs are not at all personal. In those cases, the society in which those people live should force those people to take certain actions according to science. If the people don't like it, they should move to their own private islands or something because public health matters.
Oh and I certainly do come to this channel for a mind fuck. Thank you!
*psst* the last syllable in Anishnabai rhymes with bae, not bye. Great video!
15:50 That would be like using a map of your country, to navigate a mall.
Actually, Columbus believed that the earth was pear shaped.
Yummy!
This sounds like a joke but is the only way his calculations would make sense.
His contemporaries were going with a spherical shape and (correctly) predicted that his supplies would not last until Japan.
His successful return must have caused quite some turmoil, until it was settled that he had in fact found a new continent.
The people at the University of Salamanca immediately cried foul - Eratosthenes' measurements couldn't be wrong! And then, there were those really funny "Japanese" people that Columbus had brought over who looked nothing like they were described by traders at the time, plus the climate, and animals, and suspicious lack of refined culture and industry... Needless to say, a lot of educated people at the time were not convinced by Columbus' drivel, even *after* his return.
Still, it took a while for the whole 'new continent' idea to gain traction, and then Amerigo Vespucci got credit for it - and thus the name 'America' was born. Columbus, on the other hand, died absolutely convinced that he had reached Asia.
@@Ildskalli Meanwhile the Portuguese were pointing to their left going, "This is the right way, dude. We know, we've already been where you wanna go and we know India is definitely not over there. Neither is Japan, we're on our way there right now. Why do you think we''ve insisted on an imaginary line dividing the world that gives us access to Brazil while you still think we don't know it's there? Noob."
Excellent video. Very well put together. Probably my favorite episode in a long time.
It is impossible to write a paper and demonstrate every idea you have on it. The fact that you make reference to another paper, and in that paper, those ideas were demonstrated, is convincing, because we acknowledge that those ideas that are being explaned, didn't came up from nowhere or by accident, they came up from another work, and that work has some demonstrations into it. Flat earth sounds kind of dumb, because it lacks this reliability, it's ideas are based on assumptions that are made on itself. Science has also came up with some strange ideas, just look at Freud penis envy theory. The scientific method doesn't mean we can be ashured that it is the truth, but at least it shows us where our confidence on the theory and it's ideas *can* come from. And because flat earth sounds like such an absurd idea, people are inclined to deny it, but to do that, they have to explain why the earth is round, and because of that, I think flat earth conspiracy actually made people engage more on scientific research
References in papers *are* an argument from authority. However, all alternatives seem to be worse.
i don't think Freud is a good example of the scientific method
Hecatonicosachoron in what way are they an argument from authority? Thats completely ridiculous, thats to lose all meaning of the concept
Freud's penis envy theory was not science.
As an autistic person, I am understandably wary of scientific claims being taken at face value.
But the earth is round.
(I got that reference)
Ironic that nobody remembers Unforgotten Realms tbh
I remember it came from some late 90s website autoplaying a sound file, but I forgot the name.
You can find such a thing in the town of MOONWELL PASS.
It's my birthday today, and this is a gift that I needed. I needed to hear this. I often find myself frustrated and angry at people who ignore facts and even claim that there is no such thing as fact. But it's important to remember that everyone is, in a way, the product of their own perspective.
A conversation with a religious person about evolution actually prompted me to read Origin of the Species for the first time, because I realized I had caught myself essentially making an argument from authority, and that if I was going to make these sorts of arguments I should be better versed in the science. I thanked the religious person for their point and immediately downloaded the text and started reading it.
It serves no good to talk down to others or be angry at them. No good whatsoever, and I am working to be better.
'sexy accent'
i hear no yorkshire accent. i call bad science
It’s usually one of two reasons. Either they don’t understand the science or miss understandit, or their ego and emotions will not let them accept something that will change their worldview and make them potentially uncomfortable in the face of reality
I'm just saying: I also come for the sexy accent!
I doubt the flatties have any idea what Direct Realism is. But I agree they definitely use a subset of it in their conspiracy. Based on my encounters with them, I'd say you're 100% right.
Flat earthers pretty much never try to suggest a better working model that better explains observable reality. They simply doubt the curvature and anything that tries to tell them that the horizon isn't what it looks like. That's what it's all about: holding onto what they visually see as the absolute authority of what reality is. They don't even care if everything else we observe totally disproves the notion, or that our vision is too limited to see all of reality, meaning it can't be relied on for understanding it all.
I concur that it's less of a conspiracy theory now and more of an aversion to being "told". In fact most take pride in taking their thinking and experiments into their own hands, while not listening to anything else. That's why they always say "do your own research"
We've given these people mountains of evidence that the earth is a globe, but unless they can see the world is round with their own eyes, they'll never believe it.
That's why Flat earth definitely needs more analysis from philosophy and psychology. Direct hard evidence or debunking hasn't done much to sway an ideology that's strictly anti-science, anti-intellectual and completely about resistance. In other words flat earth was never about facts or proofs, but rather a philosophical movement (i.e: believe nobody but yourself/bible, blah blah/self empowerment). And a philosophical problem needs a philosophical response
I think that, as scientists, we are trained to identify what to look at for persuasion, and to look past the rhetoric and directly at the evidence as much as possible. I would argue in scientific writing, rhetorical prowess is not nearly as relevant or crucial as in say, a philosophy paper or a political essay. Results can be embellished all we want, any claim will have to stand on the evidence that is presented, in the face of experts. Plus... have you seen what scientific writing looks like?
But... it is true that the human aspect cannot be ignored. Even scientists will fall prey to their biases and hidden assumptions. As you point out, racist scientists will readily do racist science without questioning it. We just expect that truth will prevail, given time. It is illuminating and humbling to see one successfully argue why the social and human aspects cannot be dismissed even when talking about science, arguably the most objective thing there is, and the communication of science. Especially so when trying to understand distrust in science.
A major tenet of science is that in theory, anything can be replicated, and therefore, is demonstrable by *anyone*. But in practice we have no choice but to trust other people who supposedly know better than us. And that turns something theoretically objective into something that's much more societal. As scientists, we trust the peer-reviewed publication system because we recognize its features as trustworthy, and in my eyes they are objectively so. But this still is, fundamentally, a question of trust.
Hi, I really enjoyed this video (and all of your other videos that I've watched so far), thank you.
There's a mathematical 'proof' that I'd like to share, if anyone is interested. It 'proves' an utter nonsense thing, but appears to be completely legit if you don't understand the 'illegal' maths operation used.
Let a = b
ab = b^2, because a = b, so a x b = b x b
ab + b^2 = b^2 + b^2
so ab + b^2 = 2(b^2)
minus 2ab from both sides: ab + b^2 - 2ab = 2(b^2) - 2ab
ab - 2ab = -ab, so (b^2) - ab = 2(b^2) - 2ab
factor out a 1 from the left side and 2 from the right side:
1(b^2 - ab) = 2(b^2 - ab)
divide both sides by (b^2 - ab), and this leaves:
1 = 2
Literally, that 1 = 2.
Like, if you have one thing, you by definition have 2 things.
I am holding 1 pen. I am therefore holding 2 pens.
This might seem like some profound new truth to the universe that we've discovered, that one is literally equal to 2, but what we've done is divide by zero, and then things get squiffy.
Because a = b
so b^2 = b x b = a x b
so b^2 - ab is ab - ab, which is zero.
One thing minus itself is always zero.
This is why we're not allowed to divide by zero.
Zero divided by something is zero, but something divided by zero is 'undefined'.
Some stuffy old man didn't wake up one day and say, 'you know what Martha, f**k 'em, I've decided that nobody can divide by zero'.
We can't divide by zero because we end up with results like this, and I think that this is somewhat relevant to the flat earth theory.
It seems as though many flat earthers are doing the intellectual equivalent of dividing by zero and coming out with theories about how nature works, without the requisite understanding to understand what they don't understand.
I've been thinking about this a lot and your video inspired me to share my thoughts on it. Apologies for the long comment.
OMG an unforgitten realms reference!
Also, Columbus didn't think the globe was smaller. He was working with a globe that overestimated the size of Asia and underestimate the size of the Atlantic/Pacific ocean. So he did think Japan was closer than it was.
I think that economics argument probably only applies to the field of economics, which is mostly ideological BS.
I'd say dignity and vanity are the base drivers for human behavior. Self-preservation. Both when condoning or rejecting science or any other descriptions of the world we inhabit. Even though, as you describe, science isn't really a description of the world. But in a society which puts a lot of emphasize on science, if you're marginalized (in your own view) in some way, you'll tend to reject science simply because you'll gain status by identifying in opposition to the authorities. We see this pattern with flat earthers, but also in many other places. In academia there will always be the danger of laying out your hypothesis as the conclusion. Especially in the humanities, where often the subject in scrutiny is an idea, rather than an object. And as you brilliantly describe, if other study's base their hypothesis on your conclusions, which really just are a hypothesis, then we have a spiral going that can do great harm. Idea's, even though fictional by nature, can have real matter of factly effect in the objective world.
I do agree that cites and references are an argument from authority and therefore a fallacy. However, they are needed in order to be practical. If everyone needed to demonstrate through evidence every single claim, scientific knowledge would not be cummulative and we would still be arguing about XV century scientific stuff (like flat earth itself).
Actually, I think you're right claiming that Science is a social construct in need of persuasion. Ideally, it would not, but the social aspects of science (including fallacies) are there in order to counterweight biases and allow self correction through time.
I always realized these points, but I never thought that those were the reason why the existance of these conspiracy theories was unavoidable.
Congratulations! You fucked my mind with a sexy british accent.
In an ideal world, that would be the only function: Serve as evidence that something was said. And also in order to give a reader a way to get deeper into the subject as a bonus.
But you are ignoring something if you think that cites are not arguments by themselves. They are arguments about your trustworthiness. If you don't use them, you are automatically considered not serious enough and not trustworthy. But also, no one in academia will accept your references if they come from let's say a random guy on a TH-cam video except if that's the main topic of study of your work (Something like a paper on: The public opinion about topic X in online media. Then I can cite you without problem). But if you make a rightful claim and correct claim in a non formal, non authoritative medium and I cite you (without you being the main object of study), I will be dismissed by any academic journal because of my "unreliable sources". This is a clear example of argument from authority.
Also, I think there is a problem with our meanings: Cites are not arguments per se, but the cited text is the argument that you are getting "from authority". This is the common way to refer to this type of fallacies "argument from Y". The argument is not the fallacy, but the content of it.
P.S.: And I'm not against cites, I do think that they are vital given real life. But within logics, their existance is formally unnecessary and fallacious.
Erómeon interesting thoughts. If I may offer my two cents, I think the scientific community would fall apart if peer reviewers allowed citations of what would now be considered “non-credible” sources. The assumption being that work published in a peer-reviewed journal, or at least work in a scholarly source that has been verified many times since (think scientific experiments prior to the 1900s, which didn’t all necessarily go through a modern “peer-review” but have been reproduced and confirmed) is true. It’s a strong foundation for further work, as you pointed out in your first comment, and retractions are rare. If we used blog posts or TH-cam videos to build on, we would probably find that a lot more nonsense would get published and we wouldn’t be able to trust blog posts OR peer-reviewed literature.
Are citations an argument from authority? I’m not so sure. Maybe in some contexts, but in general, scientific papers rarely deal in absolutes (and for good reason). I rarely see “X is true because Smith 2012 said so”, rather it’s more like “Smith 2012 found X, and we built on that to find Y, and this suggests Z .” Note that Z is not sold as a fact, but as a likely conclusion based on the evidence presented. I don’t believe this to be fallacious. Sorry for the novel, I’d love to hear your thoughts.
Oh, no, don't be sorry for the length. It was so clearly written I almost didn't realize it was long.
I do agree with the point that peer reviewed journals would be a chaos without citations. Basically, the review process would be etternal if they were forced to look for the veracity of every single claim from any source. However, this example shows precisely my point: Citations are a social shortcut to avoid eternal reproduction.
Let me explain. Science is built through the idea of doubt about everything. That includes other's claims. In some ways, the only logical path to create knowledge would be applying methodological doubt every single one of us. However, it would be ridiculously impractical if everyone started from scratch like Descartes and then when we became convinced of existence, start every single historical experiment in order to be sure. It would be madness and we would never accumulate knowledge!!
However, we can use a shortcut saying: This is what others have found, this is the rough idea of how they came to this conclusion, this other bunch of people has reached the same conclusion, and I'm going to build from here (Basically the same you said earlier). Why should you trust them? Because they know their subjects, i.e.: they are authorities. But my point is that even if practical, this process brings two fundamental errors that make statements not necessarily true (a logical process that does not necessarily imply a true conclusion from the premises is fallacious by definition): First, you're using other's testimony as a proof, this implies error. Second, you're only accepting specific sources, but logic states that a true statement is, regardless of its source.
Maybe you say that you're not trusting the article, but its proof, but they do work over other someone's work and you won't see those evidences, and this chain would go forever.
With that said, my objective is not to say that science is wrong doing so, nor that we should be cited in a journal (it would be nice, btw :p ), but that citations are fallacious because even if a practical shortcut, it's with the price of leaving place for error. Fortunately, the process is self correcting because we also use other methods in order to counterweight the previously mentioned problems.
I hope this made more sense. Now you see that if you wrote a novel, I wrote a trilogy with its prologue written by someone with more fame that only read the first two pages.
Eromeon You have it wrong. Using citations and other support is not necessarily the fallacy of argument from authority. It depends on how things are structured, the logical form. Used properly, they lead the viewer to supporting evidence without bogging down the current topic. You touch on this when you mention scientific knowledge would not be cumulative without it.
If you are interested in the social nature of science, you would like Thomas Kuhn's _Structure of Scientific Revolution." This is not exactly current thinking, but it is a great intro. (Not to be making citation or reference lolol)
Death Will Come: While true in some sense, they often amount to arguments from authority (in practice for individuals) because often we cannot do the necessary experimentation to yield the same conclusions as the source material. Some reasons for that is the time it takes, and the expensive nature of modern science, as well as, the tools and expertise required
I DO get that Unforgotten Realms reference, Olli! Fun web show.
When I see the behaviour of people like Neil Degrasse Tyson and Sam Harris, I am convinced that we need a new Science War.
shinjinobrave ... We already are in that pickle... taste it, smell it, feel it... That, my friend, is, hard reign coming down from heaven, and its measured in severts with a very expensive gyger counter. And every daughter theretofore of... tic tic tic tic tic rapidtics...
This isn't directed at you, as you already know all this. I was just pulled into this little rant so i went with it lol.
I think we need to renew our focus on objectivity. NdGT, Sam Harris, Dawkins, the usual current science spokespeople, can and often do come off as pompous and condescending. But their method of delivery of information has no actual bearing on the validity of that information.
Whether a person behaves with dignity and respect, such as the gentleman in this video... or they scream "hey jackass the earth is round!" in your face... the shape of the earth is still the shape of earth.
I think it becomes an "us vs them" situation and objective truth ceases to matter. But regardless of a person's thoughts, feelings, biases, or beliefs... the shape of the earth is still the shape of the earth. People don't like being told that what they think and feel is irrelevant and unimportant. But in regards to fact... it is.
I wouldn't really classify Harris as a scientist.
4:13 Oh shit, I'd forgotten about Unforgotten Realms!
Says the Earth is a ball, and uses a cgi cartoon to prove it in the thumbnail.
Flat earthers will dismiss any photo evidence of the shape of the earth as part of "the conspiracy".
Dan Crane no. we can spot photo fakery
Ba11eClorin check out my latest video and explain how that's possible on a globe
Erick Gaudreault check out my latest video and explain how that's possible on a globe
Ba11eClorin you have to be joking, the himawari sends "unalterted photos" of earth? Cmon...
Well done, Sir. The argument presented in this video has a fair chance of being the most rational approach to discussing this issue ever attempted, EVER. Assuming, of course, that there IS an external world, about which the statements being presented could be determined unequivocally to have been made in reference to, thereby allowing us the 'framework' necessary to discuss the aforementioned information, particularly regarding the reality of the nature belonging to the reality of said nature, and its relation to the reality we have constructed in our subjective minds, considering the reality of real-nature in contrast to the reality we are, by nature, products of the nature of natural relations.
The thing that seems to nullify the direct realism idea, as you pointed out, is that they're selectively choosing direct vs indirect realism as it fits their world view and combining it with both believing others results and not believing others results at the same time. I've read accounts that flat earthers believe that all of the other planets are spheres (or close enough) but they just don't believe that the earth is. So they believe the results of the scientific process in some cases, but not others. They (as you did in the video) cite examples where scientists (those who work towards truth through experimentation and analysis) were objectively wrong, but don't continue the thread to see that the scientific process eventually proved that those older ideas were wrong and newer ideas came about that were closer to the truth.
A side note about the scientific process is that any leap in scientifically found knowledge comes either from inferring something not observed in an observed result or unexpected observed results that the scientist wasn't seeking. Then they adjust their hypothesis. This then prompts any good scientist to develop a test to see if their new hypothesis (scientific guess, a theory is a hypothesis that has withstood many attempts to disprove it) is correct. The existence of the Higgs Boson was inferred long before it was found by direct testing/observation. The fact that Galileo inferred that the Earth orbited the Sun based on other observations is just how the scientific process works. The other scientists that disagreed with him weren't yet willing to accept the implication that if all other planets orbited the sun that the Earth did as well, because they were still holding on to the older theistic notion of a geocentric universe. Either that, or they weren't willing to defy the church.
"OPTICAL ILLUSIONS"
Captain America voice: "I understood that reference"
You know back in my days as a Popperite science student this sort of talk would ruffle my feathers. But, you are spot on. Popular science writers are terrified of giving the impression of uncertainty. Scientists are mostly concerned with convincing each other and then delivering Truths from On High to the unwashed. Skilled popular science writers can charm an already sympathetic audience into not feeling patronised, but not everyone accepts that passive, one way relationship. Why should they?
4:12 I ABSOLUTELY got that reference. I wish Unforgotten Realms was still a thing.
I didn't finish the video, but I wanted to share a though about the bit and pieces of Science that we used to believe it was right, but with time we understood it better. One great book that you can find if is called "When the Earth Was Flat: All the Bits of Science We Got Wrong". Really good reading.
I was in a county jail (don't judge) years ago. One of my cell mates legitimately was a flat earthier. He wouldn't shut up about it and he tried to convince me the earth was not a globe. He actually had some interesting points. He spoke well and seemed relatively smart.
The day I get out, I stop at a gas station and I tell the cashier that my cell mate was an actual flat earthier. I tell her that I couldn't believe I had met an actual, real life flat earthier and that I had previously believed they only existed as internet trolls. She asks me a simple question about my cell mate and then she tells me that guy is her husband and that the earth is flat. What are the chances?!
Point being: flat earthers actually do exist in real life. I really thought it was just an internet meme. Yet they're real and they walk amongst us. Beware.
"Science is a social construct."
To which I, a scientist (both in the professional and philosophical sense) says "no fucking duh".
It is one of the greatest social constructs we've ever come up with!
As for the list of all the very wrong things scientists used to believe... *used to* is the key. We still doubtlessly believe wrong things, but less of them and mostly a lot less wrong. That's the point and glory of science. ;)
BTW: "Race" *is* often a sensible biological category. Whether it is sensible and even exactly what it means depends on the context, but flatly saying it isn't sensible (or saying there isn't any biological basis for race) is simply nonsense. However, it is quite safe to say that race doesn't imply the sorts of correlations with traits racists tend to assert it does.
PS: Galileo's observations of the moons of Jupiter clearly orbiting Jupiter were also pretty influential in the argument against heliocentrism. The most convincing argument for a scientific theory (in the context of Science at least) is when a whole bunch of different types of data/observations fit well within the context of that theory. You're 100% correct that it about (proceeds through) persuasive arguments though... The rules of those argument are what distinguishes Science from other systems.
Wait a hecking second did I just see a reference to one of my favorite old internet cartoons in a Philosophy Tube video?